CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Curtis Weston House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from harm, medicines were managed safely and recruitment checks were completed. Inspectors noted that some people were left unsupervised at times and asked the manager to review staff deployment.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received suitable support with food, health needs and consent. Staff training and competency checks were in place, although staff could sometimes be stretched when supporting people to eat.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as kind and friendly. Staff respected people's choices, privacy, dignity and independence, but some care plans needed fuller information about people's preferences and beliefs.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Some people had little or no stimulation, and the new activities programme was not yet fully implemented. Care plans also needed more detail about personal, cultural, religious and end-of-life preferences.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality checks had not identified gaps in care plan information. A new manager and new daily meetings were making changes, but these systems had not been in place long enough for inspectors to judge their full effect.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Curtis Weston House is rated Requires Improvement; care was safe and kind, but activities, care records and management systems were not consistently strong.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 4 and 9 August 2022. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff records and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Caring. Inspectors found enough staff overall, safe medicines systems, suitable support with food and healthcare, and staff who treated people with kindness, dignity and respect.
It was rated Requires Improvement for Responsive and Well-led. Some people had little stimulation, activities were not yet fully in place, and care plans did not always give enough detail about people's preferences, cultural needs or end-of-life wishes.
The overall rating remains Requires Improvement. This is the second consecutive inspection with that rating. The previous breaches relating to consent and personalised care had been addressed, but the home still needed to improve its systems and consistency.
People were kept safe
Staff understood how to recognise and respond to abuse. Risks, fire safety, equipment and infection control were managed, and medicines were handled safely.
“People were cared for safely and were protected from the risk of harm.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff offering reassurance, respecting privacy and supporting people's choices.
“Staff were caring and compassionate and knew people well.” from the report
Health and nutrition support
People had access to healthcare professionals and staff followed advice about conditions such as swallowing difficulties and diabetes. Staff monitored weight and offered extra food and drinks when needed.
“We saw action was taken if people were losing weight, such as providing regular snacks and fortified food and drinks.” from the report
Improvement in consent practice
People's rights under the Mental Capacity Act were respected. The earlier breach about consent had been resolved.
“People's rights under the MCA were respected, consent was gained, and people were supported to live their lives independently.” from the report
Too little stimulation
needs fixingInspectors saw periods when people had little or no activity, and some spent a lot of time sleeping in chairs. A new activities worker and monthly schedule had not yet been fully established.
“There were periods of time during the inspection when we observed people had little or no stimulation.” from the report
Care plans lacked important detail
needs fixingSome records did not fully explain people's preferences, cultural or religious needs, or wishes about end-of-life care. This could make it harder for staff to provide fully personalised support.
“Quality assurance systems were not always effective in identifying gaps in information.” from the report
Management checks were not reliable enough
needs fixingThe home's quality checks had not found the gaps in care plan information. New daily meetings and other improvements still needed to become established.
“This meant staff did not always have the information they needed to fully deliver person-centred care.” from the report
Staff deployment at busy times
needs fixingThere were enough staff overall, but some people were left unsupervised at times. Staff could also be stretched when supporting people who needed constant encouragement to eat.
“During the inspection there was sufficient staff available to meet people's needs, however, at times some people were left unsupervised.” from the report
- 01How often are meaningful activities now provided, and how are they matched to each person's interests, culture and abilities?
- 02How have care plans been updated to record people's preferences, religious or cultural needs and end-of-life wishes?
- 03What changes have been made to staff deployment so that people are not left unsupervised at busy times?
- 04Has the manager completed the process of registering with the CQC?
- 05How do the new daily 10@10 meetings and quality checks show that identified improvements are being maintained?
This was an unannounced inspection that considered all five key questions, with particular attention to infection control and concerns about person-centred care, risk and staffing. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 October 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found improvements since an Inadequate rating, but care-risk records and management checks were not consistently reliable, and the home is no longer in Special Measures.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 22 and 27 April 2021. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, medicines, staff training and quality checks.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. People were protected from abuse, there were enough staff, medicines were generally managed safely, and the home was clean. Risks linked to the building were checked, and accidents and incidents were reviewed.
Some risks in people's care plans were still not recorded clearly enough. Management audits were not always accurate, and information sent to the CQC was sometimes incomplete. The overall rating improved from Inadequate to Requires Improvement, and the home left Special Measures.
Medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were generally recorded, given and disposed of safely. Staff had training and checks of their competence.
“Staff told us, and evidence showed that overall, medicines were documented, administered and disposed of in accordance with current guidance and legislation.” from the report
Staffing and safeguarding
People and relatives felt safe. Inspectors found enough staff, and staff understood how to recognise and report abuse.
“People and their relatives felt the service was safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report concerns or abuse.” from the report
Learning from incidents
Accidents and incidents were reviewed, and actions were taken to reduce the chance of problems happening again.
“Accidents and incidents were reviewed and monitored to identify trends and to prevent reoccurrences.” from the report
Cleanliness and infection control
The home was clean and inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visits, testing and protective equipment.
“We were assured the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Improved staff training
Staff training had improved, with most of the staff team up to date with the training the provider considered necessary.
“Staff training had improved since our last inspection, with 98% of the staff team fully up to date with all training the provider identified as necessary to carry out safe care.” from the report
Incomplete hoist instructions
seriousTwo care plans did not say which sling to use or which hoist-loop setting was needed. This could put people at risk, particularly if new or agency staff were providing care.
“We noted the plans did not specify what type of sling each person should have, and did not tell staff what setting to use the hoist loops in.” from the report
Unclear dietary risk information
seriousOne person's records did not explain which foods should be provided or avoided for a health condition. This could lead to an unsuitable diet if the person could not explain their needs.
“There was no information in their care records about what foods the person should have or avoid.” from the report
Management records were not always accurate
needs fixingThe manager's monthly audit contained inaccurate information about hospital admissions and 999 calls. This meant managers might not have had a complete picture of important events.
“The manager's monthly overall service audit did not always contain accurate information.” from the report
Incomplete regulatory notifications
needs fixingThe provider did not always include all the information requested on notifications sent to the CQC. This limited the information available to monitor care quality.
“The provider did not consistently provide the information requested on the notification forms.” from the report
Relatives' involvement
minorRelatives had mixed experiences of being involved in care planning and reviews. The management team agreed to review how relatives were involved.
“Relatives had mixed views about being involved in planning and reviewing their family members' care.” from the report
- 01How have you updated every care plan to include the correct hoist sling and hoist-loop setting?
- 02How do you record dietary risks and the foods each person should have or avoid?
- 03What checks now make sure monthly audits contain accurate information about hospital admissions, 999 calls and other significant events?
- 04How do you make sure relatives are invited to take part in care planning and reviews?
- 05Has the manager completed CQC registration, and who is legally responsible for the home while this is being processed?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other key-question ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 June 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Curtis Weston House
7 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- October 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2021Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2021Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2020Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2020Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 September 2012.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicestershire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.